[tristanj]

nit: The strait of Hormuz is not considered international waters. It's split between Iranian and Omani territorial waters. The strait itself is classified as a "transit passage" under Articles 37–44 of UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which guarantees ships the right of continuous and expeditious transit.

[dingaling]

Iran has not ratified UNCLOS, and Oman has ratified it but then negated the implied right of transit passage in domestic law - they only recognise innocent passage.

So the Strait has no clear legal status.

In theory since Iran didn't ratify UNCLOS they can only claim 3nm of territorial water, but they claim 12nm anyhow.

The USA insists on the right of transit passage, but itself isn't even a signatory to UNCLOS so that's hypocritical and has no basis.

It's a mess that nobody wants to touch, so it's pretty much up for grabs by the most militant player.

[tristanj]

Very interesting, I wasn't aware of the full legal mess occurring at the strait.

I found this detailed article [0], written by a law student, which discusses the Hormuz strait situation in the context of the past century of maritime law.

[0] https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-strait-of-hormuz-an...

[spwa4]

I don't understand this legal position: the UN security council, which is both the judge, the appelate court, the supreme court and the enforcement mechanism of maritime law, has publicly declared they won't do anything about it.

In any other legal situation, if the supreme court says it's OK, there's nothing to be done. There's a word for that: legal. As in whatever happens is legal, even if everyone kills each other.

That's what the world voted. That's the situation "international diplomacy" has chosen.

There's not much relevant to be said about maritime law until the US wins (because Iran won't respect it, regardless of what it says)

[tristanj]

>the UN security council, which is both the judge, the appelate court, the supreme court and the enforcement mechanism of maritime law, has publicly declared they won't do anything about it. In any other legal situation, if the supreme court says it's OK, there's nothing to be done. There's a word for that: legal. As in whatever happens is legal, even if everyone kills each other.

You are rhetorically clever but analytically wrong on almost every premise.

Your claim rests on UNSC inaction = judicial approval = legal sanction. This is false on multiple levels.

A supreme court saying something is legal relies on an affirmative ruling. A body simply declining to act, especially for political reasons such as a Russian or Chinese veto, is not a ruling of any kind.

The UNSC is also not a court. It is a political body of 15 member states that authorize enforcement actions related to international peace and security. It does not make legal rulings. The actual judicial body in the UN system is the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ has made no ruling on the strait of Hormuz situation.

You also conflate UNSC inaction with legality. That's an interesting philosophical position, but by that exact logic:

* The apartheid of South Africa was "legal" because the UNSC was blocked from acting decisively on the issue for decades.

* The US/Israel strikes on Iran were "legal" because the UNSC never vetoed it.

* The Israeli genocide of Palestine is "legal" because it was protected by UNSC veto.

Obviously, quite flawed logic.

Overall, three errors:

1) you conflated legal inaction as affirmative legal action.

2) you conflated a political body with a legal one.

3) you conflated UNSC inaction with legality.

[spwa4]

Can I just point you to the first line of Wikipedia's definition of law? Law is what's enforced, not the rules by themselves.

Oh and it's pretty revealing which situations you think are worthy of law violation and which ones aren't (e.g. as per usual Boucha and anything relating to Russia's, or Iran, or offensive Palestinian actions aren't mentioned. It "almost seems" the argument you're making is that law only serves to make your favorite political viewpoint come true, and not for anything else. Funny in a way, since it exposes your hypocrisy: that was exactly the point I was making. Well, with "you" being a person who actually decides, as opposed to you)

[kcplate]

> Law is what's enforced, not the rules by themselves.

Within my circle of friends (generally those who are in Europe), I have been trying explain this distinction whenever it’s brought up that “US violates international law”. Be it Greenland, Iran, Israel…whatever…if your international law’s enforcement arm (The US) will not enforce on itself, then whatever the US does or decides to do is legal.

[tristanj]

> Can I just point you to the first line of Wikipedia's definition of law? Law is what's enforced, not the rules by themselves.

Sure, and this is the first line of Wikipedia's definition of law [0].

Law is a set of rules that are created and enforced by governmental or societal institutions to regulate behavior, with its precise definition a matter of longstanding debate.

Ouch, that obviously doesn't agree with your definition. What a flagrant error. Did you even look at the Wikipedia article before writing your comment?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law

[aucisson_masque]

Who cares about legality in these matter ? You are not going to see a UN white ship splitting the Detroit between Iran and Oman.

It's whoever has the will and the mean.

The more I see of that war, the more I think a war was/is necessary because we can't let these lunatics have nuclear weapon. Whatever the cost.

[spwa4]

... and do you think that's a reasonable position to take?

If these treaties are not in force, a lot of countries cannot trade freely internationally. These days all countries are dependent on free international trade, but for obvious reasons it goes double for desert countries like the ones behind the strait of Hormuz, even without considering oil.

Geography allows a number of countries like Iran, but also Spain, Indonesia, South Africa, Argentina, Turkey, UK, Denmark and Yemen to tax entire continents, including each other simply by threat of sinking ships. Endless wars have been fought over this.

Why?

First, anything that depends on international supply chains (like computers, iphones, cars, coffee, chocolate, tea, ... or the food for the survival of gulf nations' populations) is gone, in a matter of months.

Second, the "Pax Americana" is over, the post-WW2 security architecture is over (which is code for WW3 will start as soon as the first country considers itself ready). This will, by the way, not fix the first problem, not even if your country wins.

The sad truth is that either the US wins this war, or half of the world will once again find their place of employment is a cold, wet dugout with people shooting at them. Including, of course, Iranians.

[jurgenburgen]

> Second, the "Pax Americana" is over, the post-WW2 security architecture is over

I’m sorry but it ended when the US started to threaten Denmark with invasion. That genie isn’t going back into the bottle.

[spwa4]

The main component of it is the US enforcing the law of the seas (as in actually enforcing it, not the way the UK serviced itself before WW2).

So no, quite the opposite. Thankfully.

I have worked for the EU, and the EU has wanted an EU military since before I was born. Hell, my father was in diapers the first time it was called for (Charles De Gaulle demanded it before he returned to France from Berlin. And I assure you, at the time Charles De Gaulle's voice was louder than if God himself would have come down to earth, shouting. He couldn't make it happen). Europe is not suddenly waking up to reality.

You know how much the US pays for it's military? About the same as EU states pay for unemployment in bad years (as in 30% more than the average now). What I mean is the question is not "Does the EU want a military?". That's obvious.

The question is the price, and not really in money, but in the economic effort required to do it (in other words, most of the abstraction that is money won't apply. You cannot borrow an army, for example. Whatever you spend on an army you will be increasing the budget with at least inflation every year, and so on). And even then, keep in mind the US does not really pay for soldiers. In the US it's effectively the case that some social benefits, mostly free in Europe, are only available in the US if you join the army first. This is why every country tries to get foreign nations to pay for their military, like the UK did before and Iran is trying to do now.

And there are only a few big expenses in EU government budgets. So ...

The question becomes "There's 3 components to social security in European countries. Medical insurance, unemployment and pensions. The only way to get an army is to trade in one of the 3. So which one do we trade in for an army?"

But yeah, the EU countries could cancel unemployment and instead do something like "if you lose your job, serve 5 years in the military for almost no pay, THEN you can get unemployment". That is the level of effort required.

I don't think we have to go through the effort of scheduling a vote, do we?

[upboundspiral]

Your solution (of tackling unemployment by tacking it onto national defense), is eerily close to what they discussed in an episode of Yes Prime Minister in the 80s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX_d_vMKswE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahgjEjJkZks

[swat535]

> The USA insists on the right of transit passage, but itself isn't even a signatory to UNCLOS so that's hypocritical and has no basis.

The USA and Israel clearly don't care or abide by international law anyway. US is already pirating unarmed ships on international waters, blowing up schools and hospitals as it pleases.

None of the western countries held them accountable until IRAN started putting pressure on them via the strait.

Now suddenly everyone is up in arms about the intricate details of "UNCLOS", while a second genocide is about to happen via Israel in Lebanon.